The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-07

theological controversy. The board is not a
tribunal to define orthodoxy. The Churches
have regular means of doing this
The burning issue was joined on the question
as to which of these reports should be
adopted. Prof Fisher spoke IN favor of his
report. All the prudential committee should
do was, he said, to ascertain. not much what
what the ideas of the candidate speculative
doctrines are, but what he will make or them; IN
short. to determine that he is not s'crank.
Prof Boardman. of the Chicago Theological
Seminary, said: 1--WE are trying evangelize
the world, and we must do it with certain
weapons, and the most important one ID the
gospel Ler see if our weapons are the right
ones The idea that we have nothing to do with
theology Is preposterous. Now, the question
is, will it be wise TO introduce this new theology
to lie alongside that to which we have been
used2 The two are not consistent with each
other, and the old is better" DIR. Boardman
then proceeded to conrovert the dogma of pro-
baton after death. 1t was impossible for q
man to hold this doctrine and not preach it. -
Rev. DIR. Parker. of Hartford, pleaded for
those who hold the hypothesis-not the doctrine
of future probation.
Rev. DR. Taylor of New York, argued the
danger of sending missionaries who entertain
this hypothesis; they cannot meet the questions
or the heather. for il their ancestors might en-
joy probation after death. then. though dying IN
sin, they were cot condemned. The danger IN
progress in theology its movement in the
direction of more error.
Rev. DR.. Walker, Of Hartford, said the doc
trine under discussion was not a new one, as was
supposed; it dated from the second century, and
Rev G. A. Gordon, of Boston, declared that
to adopt the majority report would be to ALLEVIATE
larger and larger constituency. 1t would be
hard to hold the great churches to the support
of the board.
Rev DR.. E. P Goodwin of Chicago, said that
his self-respect would not allow him remain
Silent. DIR Fisher calls me a crank by impi-
cation when he SAYS that premlennalsts should
be excluded by notice that no cranks need ap-
ply.'n
Dr. Fisher and others said DIR. Goodwin was
in as to what DIR. Fisher had said.
Continuing. DIR. Goodwin said that Drs. Scud-
der, Moody. Spurgeou and st. Paul were on the
same ground as to tho second coming of Christ.
al thought year ago." said he. 1--WE hadn't
come to the parting Of the ways l find diff
Guilty with this doctrine of second probation
from Christian consciousness. do not find in
the Bible any respect for the philosophy of
men. Christ quoted Moses rather than philoso-
ply to support his teachings. So did St Paul
After extended debate the board rejected,
by vote of 90 to 43. the minority report of the
committee, and passed. by viva voce vote, the
majority report, which sustains the action of the
Des MONIES conference against the theory OF
probation after death.
The folio wing officers were elected: President
Richard S. Storrs, D. D., LII. D.; vice president
Il. W. Blatchford; prudential committee
Augustus c. Thompson; d. D.. Ezra Farnsworth
Hon. Joseph S. Ropes, Edwin r. Webb
D. D.. Charles G. Burr. q. Terry, Albert
III. Plumb. d. D.. Hon. VIM. p. Ellison,
Edward S. Atwood, and Rev. Charles
A. Dickinson; corresponding secretaries,
Nathaniel c. Clark, D. D., Edmund K. Alden.
Judson Smith. D. D.; recording secretary,
S. Ward auditors, a W. Tufts, James NJ. Cor
don and Joseph G. Tyler.